Building More Homes And Delivering Infrastructure

10. Being clear about how much housing land is
required.

The consultation paper was clear that more needs to be done to
support housing delivery and we maintain that view. Work on
planning for housing is ongoing alongside developing proposals for
legislative change. We proposed that more could be done nationally,
through the National Planning Framework, to guide the level of
housing land required in local development plans.

Different stakeholders have concerns about this
proposal.

Some do not support what they perceive to be centralisation,
removing decisions on housing away from the local context,
reducing transparency and a loss of flexibility.

There are mixed views from the development industry,
including some concerns that too flexible an approach at a
national or regional level will do little to improve clarity, as
well as calls for greater involvement and challenge in the
Housing Needs and Demands Assessment (
HNDA)
process.

Planning authorities and others argue that a clear national
steer on housing land requirements would be welcomed if it helps
to streamline local development planning and free up
resources.

We have taken into account responses to the consultation,
including the wide range of views on whether or not housing figures
should be set at a national or local level.

Whilst it will be important to ensure that future changes to the
planning system are equipped to deal effectively with planning for
housing, we expect this to be addressed as a priority in policy and
guidance, rather than through structural change to the system.
Bearing in mind our proposals for enhancing the role of the
National Planning Framework and Scottish Planning Policy, we will
continue to work with housing professionals, planning authorities
and developers to identify a solution which minimises the level of
debate on how much land is required for housing. The objective is
to allow everyone to focus more on delivering sufficient good
quality housing which improves places and is supported by the right
infrastructure.

11. Closing the gap between planning consent and delivery
of homes.

We suggested that planning authorities could take more steps to
actively help deliver development. Much of this would be supported
by the wider proposed changes to the planning system as a whole,
and the consultation paper noted that in addition, planning
authorities could do more to enable development through greater use
of existing powers (such as Compulsory Purchase Orders) as well as
new and emerging delivery models and approaches. We also called for
major applications for housing to be accompanied by appropriate
information on development viability.

Views on how this can be achieved range from those who argue
that they will have little impact on delivery to others who are
concerned that a drive to improve delivery could come at an
environmental or social cost.

Planning authorities have emphasised that their influence on
the type of homes provided is limited.

There are wider views that the lack of competition in the
housing market (e.g. from smaller builders) is impacting on the
diversity of homes delivered.

There is agreement that planning can and should do more to
support the delivery of different types of homes in different
locations.

Communities have emphasised the importance of creating high
quality places rather than too great a focus on housing numbers.
Within this, there is support for brownfield land in preference
to greenfield sites, protection of prime agricultural land, and
better co-ordination of housing with local facilities and
infrastructure.

The proposal for fuller information on development viability
to support major applications has been welcomed by communities
and most planning and policy respondents, but is not supported by
the majority of development industry respondents. Some
respondents have pointed out that assessments can change over
time and that different circumstances will determine whether or
not it can be made available.

Housing delivery is a continuing priority for this review. We
will continue to work with others, including through the More Homes
Scotland approach, to ensure that planning does all it can to
enable the building of more high quality homes of a broader range
of types, and in a way which strengthens places and quality of
life. We remain clear that planning for housing should recognise
the importance of working with our environmental assets to create
great places.

We maintain that fuller information on the viability of sites
and development delivery should be part of a planning process and
will continue to develop this further with a view to future
guidance.

Whilst changes to Compulsory Purchase Orders, Compulsory Sale
Orders and a development land tax could all influence the context
for planning for housing, we are exploring options around these
separately and they will not be taken forward as part of the
Planning Bill. We will, however, pursue revised guidance for
operation of existing
CPO powers in
the short term.

12. Releasing more 'development ready' land for
housing.

We suggested that greater use of a zoned approach to development
has potential to support housing delivery. We are now progressing
four pilot Simplified Planning Zones in Aberdeenshire, Argyll and
Bute, North Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway to explore the
potential for this further. We have also undertaken research,
including a fact-finding visit to Ireland to look at their use of
Strategic Development Zones.

There is support for this in principle, but also questions
about the extent to which this might result in a loss of
development quality or engagement, or could undermine wider
commitments to robust environmental assessment and design.

Communities want to ensure that zoned areas are well serviced
by infrastructure, fully consulted on and assessed for their
impacts, including on the environment.

Business and development industry respondents broadly welcome
the proposal but are seeking further information.

Questions have been raised about funding, both for
establishing a zone and for providing the infrastructure, with
some noting that fees would be lost whilst upfront resources
would be needed.

Others question the appropriateness of allocating a large
area of land for a single use and there are calls for design,
masterplanning and / or coding to be used to ensure quality of
place.

We remain of the view that zoning has potential to unlock
significant areas for housing development, including by supporting
alternative delivery models such as custom and self-build. This
could also support wider objectives including business development
and town centre renewal.

We expect to bring forward proposals for legislative change that
will refresh and rebrand Simplified Planning Zones and allow them
to be progressed in a wider range of circumstances. These changes
will be designed in a way which addresses issues raised in the
consultation including the need for environmental assessment,
design and quality to be built into schemes, and community
engagement to be incorporated. We are also minded to make provision
for discretionary charging. We will look at broadening the way in
which the idea of establishing a zone can be progressed, including
by allowing for Ministers to direct a zone to be established where
it is in the national interest. Both local authorities and site
promoters could also be given scope to bring proposals for zoning
forward.

As with our wider aim of delivering more homes, opportunities
for design, innovation and placemaking should be integral to these
proposals.

13. Embedding an infrastructure first
approach.

Effective infrastructure planning can ensure that places
function properly and development improves, rather than detracts
from quality of life. The consultation considered infrastructure
governance, duties and responsibilities. We invited views on our
proposal for a national working group to co-ordinate infrastructure
and planning and also on whether our proposals for regional scale
strategic planning would improve planning for infrastructure.

A range of views have emerged from the consultation - most
agree that some sort of action is required to address the issue
and progress change.

Some believe there is a need for a new national body, in many
cases businesses or the development industry, and argue that a
less formal arrangement would lack impetus.

Others support a working group approach on the basis of
concerns about creating another agency and 'increasing
bureaucracy'.

Co-ordination and communication is widely recognised as a
priority, and many agree that there is scope to build on existing
experience.

There are also concerns about the extent to which an agency
or delivery group would treat different areas of Scotland
equitably.

Scottish Ministers remain of the view that a new agency is not
needed to improve the links between planning and infrastructure. We
have also taken into account views that a working group may or may
not lack influence or impetus. As there are different views on
appropriate arrangements, but consensus on a need for action in the
short term, we have asked the Scottish Futures Trust to work with
us to take forward support for significant stalled sites in
combination with the ongoing brokerage role of the Chief Planner.
This will also link with the More Homes Scotland programme. Rather
than having statutory powers, this would be led by the Scottish
Government and involve infrastructure providers as and when
required. We believe a task based approach is likely to have the
greatest impact in the shortest time.

Furthermore, we are continuing to consider options for a
national delivery group to support improved co-ordination of
development and infrastructure issues. To inform this we will
continue a dialogue with the current key agencies and private
sector delivery partners including on transport (rail),
electricity, gas, heat, telecommunications and digital
infrastructure providers. Over the coming months, this would
provide a useful forum to discuss any potential changes to duties
and powers to be considered for inclusion in the legislation.

We will continue to engage in the forthcoming review of the
Infrastructure Investment Plan to ensure that the National Planning
Framework informs decision making about future investment
priorities. As proposals take shape, continuing alignment with
ongoing work on the Enterprise and Skills Review and the National
Transport Strategy's review of transport governance at the
national, regional and local levels will be critical over the
coming months.

Our proposal to move strategic development planning towards
regional partnership working can also help to improve
infrastructure governance and co-ordination. Infrastructure
planning, from transport and utilities to catchment scale water and
flooding management and green networks, requires a strong evidence
base and often a cross boundary perspective. To develop the
regional scale of infrastructure planning in more detail, we will
explore approaches to regional infrastructure audits further over
the coming months. We will also continue to work with
infrastructure providers to define how best to facilitate their
involvement in the planning system.

14. Creating a fairer and more transparent approach to
funding infrastructure.

We suggested that a new means of capturing land value uplift, in
the form of an infrastructure levy, could be used to strengthen the
scope for planning to support the delivery of development. We
commissioned research and published a report of Stage 1 and 2 of
this work alongside the consultation paper in January 2017. We also
proposed removing scope for Section 75 planning obligations to be
modified or discharged (Section 75A).

There appears to be general support for the principle of
introducing a levy, but views vary on the form it should
take.

Many consultees are seeking further information before
reaching a view on whether or not it would be a positive
change.

The development industry are questioning what a levy would
fund, with concerns that it would be used to replace central
funding for infrastructure.

Businesses are seeking more information on the impacts on
project viability and are concerned that it could apply to
development which has no impact on infrastructure.

Public sector respondents consider that the amount of money a
levy might raise may be limited, and that it may not help if it
does not make funds available to support upfront costs.

There is support for a mechanism which could supplement the
contributions gathered through Section 75 planning obligations
and a recognition of a need for different solutions.

Strong views opposing the removal of Section 75A on the part
of the development sector contrast with strong support for this
change by communities.

We remain of the view that options for a levy or charge merit
further consideration. We will finalise and publish a Stage 3
research report which identifies options that could be tested
further. We will continue to explore this with assistance from the
Scottish Futures Trust before coming to a view on the level of
detail that can or should be included in the Planning Bill.

Having considered responses to the consultation as well as
evidence on appeal cases for Section 75A in more detail, we are not
currently minded to remove the provisions at Section 75A for
modifying planning obligations. However, we remain open to
considering whether changes to Section 75 may be required in
connection with future decisions on the role of a levy.

15. Innovative infrastructure planning.

We highlighted a number of other planning priorities in
Places, People and Planning including education,
transport, green infrastructure, energy and digital infrastructure.
This work continues to progress, involving extensive collaboration
across Scottish Government policy areas. We have taken forward
enhanced permitted development rights for telecommunications
infrastructure and will continue our work on education
infrastructure planning in the coming months.

We also sought views on whether Section 3F of the Town and
Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as introduced by Section 72
of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 should be removed. There
appears to be general support for this, based on our view that it
has limited added value. However, there are some concerns that
removing this appears to be inconsistent with the aspirations of
the emerging Climate Change Plan. Given our commitment to climate
change and the need for every policy area to contribute to reducing
emissions, it is not our intention to progress this through the
Planning Bill.